This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anthroposophy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While source #11 could be construed as WP:OR, the first ten sources of our article fully WP:V the claim that Anthroposophy is Christian Gnosticism (or neognosticism).
The ten sources express a variety of POVs: Catholic, Protestant, mainstream academic (I counted at least two full professors), and including the New Age guru Carl Gustav Jung who was Steiner's fellow neognostic leader.
There is an enormous burden of proof for giving the lie to all these ten sources, and Wikipedia listens to WP:RS written by experts, not to court verdicts written by judges having a limited knowledge of Western esotericism. In matters of academic knowledge, the final authority is WP:BESTSOURCES, not the courts of law. Courts do not get to dictate what experts in religion studies and in heresiology should believe.
If you deny the application of WP:YESPOV, then answer this question: which is the opposing view? According to which WP:RS?
Some of the ten RS have been public for several decades. Who are their detractors? I don't mean detractors in general, but detractors of the claim that Anthroposophy is neognosticism. If there are dissenters, WP:CITE the dissenters.
And if you claim that Anthroposophy is neorosicrucian: there isn't a contradiction between neorosicrucian and neognostic. tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Anthroposophy is Gnosticismbecause "the Gnosis was strictly guarded", that is a completely bogus reason. Meaning their claim isn't WP:V in WP:RS written by respectable scholars of religion. The claim was made up by Blavatsky, and taken at face value by Steiner and his believers. Or, allowing for some doubt, made up by Steiner and taken at face value by his believers.
proveanything. I simply WP:CITE WP:RS. Wikipedia is simply a website for churning WP:RS, according to an agreed methodology ( WP:RULES).
Gnosticism. So I don't support that edit. But if the WP:CONSENSUS says I'm wrong about it, I am prepared to accept it. Also, the articles from Britannica about Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are terribly short, I don't think they are good examples to follow. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
We aren't going to feed six billion people with organic fertilizer. If we tried to do it, we would level most of our forest and many of those lands would be productive only for a short period of time.
Wikipedia is an attempt to collect the knowledge of a materialistic and mechanistic world view and to present the ideological view of neoliberalism and state-conformist western politics.https://www.freewiki.eu/en/index.php?title=Welcome_to_FreeWiki tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Anthroposophy is largely pseudoscientific, and you cannot change that through talk page arguments. Wikipedia will continue to say that Anthroposophy is largely pseudoscientific. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
In the end, he made me curious about Munoz's PhD thesis, so I checked what Munoz says about "Anthroposophy and racism", and I have WP:CITED Munoz. So, I did not even had to search for WP:RS, since in several instances the Anthroposophic editors have provided the sources for me, I only had to read what the sources say. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Robertson 2021 p. 572
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Gilmer 2021 p. 412
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Layton 1980 p.2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Winker 1994 p.3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Rhodes 1990 p.3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
Looking for reasons we can't add and cite this academic article among others, as an example? This can't in any way reasonably be considered 'whitewashing' right..
https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y SamwiseGSix ( talk) 22:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
"It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality, and as such it has frequently intervened in the development of our current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable to European ideas of culture. But Jewry itself has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking." (Steiner, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur p. 152)
"Thus the greatest tragedy of this 20th century [World War I] has come from what the Jews are also striving for. And one can say that since everything the Jews have done can now be done consciously by all people, the best thing that the Jews could do would be to disappear into the rest of humankind, to blend in with the rest of humankind, so that Jewry as a people would simply cease to exist. That is what would be ideal. This ideal is still opposed, even today, by many Jewish habits - and above all by the hatred of other people. That is what must be overcome." (Steiner, Die Geschichte der Menschheit und die Weltanschauungen der Kulturvölker p. 189)
Das Judentum als solches hat sich aber längst ausgelebt, hat keine Berechtigung des modernen Völkerlebens, und daß es sich dennoch erhalten hat, ist ein Fehler der Weltgeschichte, dessen Folgen nicht ausbleiben konnten. Wir meinen hier nicht die Formen der jüdischen Religion alleine, wir meinen vorzüglich den Geist des Judentums, die jüdische Denkweise. "Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur " GA 32, p. 152 f.
Judaism as such is long lived out, has no entitlement of modern peoples' lives, and that it persists nevertheless is an error in world history which was bound to have inevitable consequences. We do not mean Jewish religion only, we especially mean the character of Judaism, the Jewish way of thinking.
potentially devastating: as I told you, Wikipedia is not for positing my own opinions, but for positing the opinions of WP:RS. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
"Angry gnomes produce quarrels between schoolchildren, so let's blame the janitor!"—do you call that ontology/epistemology? Ha, ha, ha!
Teachers who seriously claim that are full-blown delusional. You can have more hope for a crack addict or for a heroin junkie. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Mosesheron: What difference do you see to Smith and Mormonism? A man claims he has had revelations from God, presents a new scripture he says comes from God, starts a new religion that claims to be a restoration, not new. It sure seems very similar. The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, we go for WP:BESTSOURCES. We do not go for sources which fail WP:FRIND. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb ( talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Coming back to the edit you have suggested, my two cents are that all the new sources fail WP:FRIND, so: no, you edit isn't allowed. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
ontologymeaning gnomes, elves, fairies, and sylphs;
epistemologymeaning talking to the spirits of dead Atlanteans. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is groundedis a largely meaningless sentence that only serves only WP:FALSEBALANCE. Do opponents "acknowledge arguments" when they refute them? Anthroposophy is a weird mixture of obsolete scientific theories, schizophrenic delusions, and platitudes, held together by pompous flubdub. And that sentence is 100% pompous flubdub. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Rather then providing links how about three really good quotes that back up your suggestion? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
even a broken clock is right twice a day—especially schools which cherrypick students from parents who are affluent and well-learned. And let's not forget: they expel students who are lazy, stupid, or misbehaving. While the hurdle for expelling students from vanilla public schools is extremely high. Why did Steve Jobs die? Because he chose alternative medicine. So, you see, even people who are affluent and well-learned do not always choose the best for themselves (and their children). tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
Hi, Nathanielcwilliams. We are not Kuhnian purists. I don't say that Kuhn isn't important, but he is not begin all and end all. Some epistemic choices have been ready-made for the Wikipedia Community, I mean the website policy WP:PSCI. Or if you want a hardcore introduction to that policy, read WP:LUNATICS.
Stated otherwise, let's say you're studying chemistry. If you learn well the paradigm of chemistry, you become a good chemist-scientist. If you don't, then you become a maverick. Same applies to Wikipedia, but in place of a scientific paradigm we have WP:RULES about which sources are relevant, how to mediate disputes, and so on. One who learns well these rules becomes a good Wikipedian, one who doesn't becomes a maverick and gets blocked and topic-banned. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Since I'm taking a break from editing this subject, there is one very big accusation I seek to clear my name of, see User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2023/November#AE discussion closed. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Karen Swartz and Olav Hammer say it is a new religious movement. Martin Gardner called it a cult.
Some have argued that there are court verdicts that Anthroposophy isn't religion ( [1]). To such argument I reply:
My wife is an expert, among many other things, in Chaucer. She doesn’t “believe” in Chaucer, although she loves the texts and finds them personally important. There are professors in the university who teach the history of communism; most of them are not communists. Others teach the philosophy of Plato; they are not necessarily Platonists. Others teach the history of 20th century Germany; they aren’t Nazis. Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers. ... And so a scholar of Buddhism is not necessarily Buddhist (the ones I know aren’t); a scholar of American fundamentalism is not necessarily an American fundamentalist (one of my colleagues in that field at UNC is an Israeli Jew); a scholar of the history of Catholicism is not necessarily Roman Catholic (another colleague of mine in that field is, again, somewhat oddly, another Israeli Jew); scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim (neither of my colleagues in that field are); etc etc.
— ehrmanblog.org
Some people maintain that it is impossible to study Jesus without believing in him. Do you think this is true? Is it true for other areas of academic study? Is it possible, for example, to study Buddhism without being a Buddhist? Or the Dialogues of Socrates without being a Platonist? Or communism without being a Marxist?
— The Historical Jesus. Part I. Professor Bart D. Ehrman. The Teaching Company, 2000, p. 4
We can start the topic by conceding that, just as no modern expert on Plato is expected to be a Platonist (even of the Middle or Neo- sort), no Bible expert should be expected to accept the ideas it puts forth, far less believe in its god(s) or its divine origin.
— Philip R. Davies, Reading the Bible Intelligently
Conclusion: Don't ventilate court verdicts around here, Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are. If you are here to deny that Anthroposophy is a religion: that ship has sailed. The dispute lies at the level of emic vs. etic. Hint: Wikipedia rubber-stamps the etic view. Anthroposophists don't agree with mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP because they think it is written by Muggles. And, yup, I can grant them this: from the inside it does not look like you are part of a religion, but more like having the secret key to the mysteries of all religions ever. And that secret key lies in Rudolf Steiner's teachings (for beginners) and in Rudolf Steiner's spiritual exercises (for more advanced adepts) + esoteric school (whose teachings are really secret).
Also, my approach isn't "stick it to them", but render the WP:CHOPSY view about Anthroposophy. I am not so much opposed to Anthroposophy as "pushing" the mainstream academic view. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
According to religious studies, Anthroposophy is a religion. I did not find WP:SECONDARY or tertiary WP:RS stating that it isn't a religion.
Hammer, Olav (2008). Geertz, Armin; Warburg, Margit (eds.).
New Religions and Globalization. Renner Studies On New Religions. Aarhus University Press. p. 69.
ISBN
978-87-7934-681-9. Retrieved 23 January 2024. Anthroposophy is thus from an emic point of view emphatically not a religion.
— The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Anthroposophists would have to sue four dozens scholars plus the Pope and Cardinals in order that they publish retractions with peer-review, and the problem is that at least five of those scholars, and several Popes, are unable to publish retractions, due to being deceased. The bottom line is: Wikipedia will no longer accept such information to be retracted (or deleted from the article), it is here to stay. It is too late for the Anthroposophical Society to change anything about that: since too much time has passed since the initial publication of those scholarly papers, the legal claim of the Society is rendered void and meritless. Suing 100 years after the fact (since the claim that Anthroposophy is a new religious movement was published on US soil) means having your lawsuit dismissed out of hand. The lawyer who tells them they could win such case is a conman or a dope addict.
E.g. the book edited by Cusack was introduced as WP:RS by Luciola63, not by me. So, in this respect, I explored a RS which has been added years ago to the article, with no one protesting against its citation. Luciola63 followed the suggestion by HopsonRoad. Similarly, McDermott was WP:CITED as an authority in May 2006 by Clean Copy. Ahern was cited in March 2006 by Tomchat123. Hammer was cited as an authority in May 2007 by an IP and AFAIK never since removed from this article. The International Bureau of Education was WP:CITED in January 2007 by Thebee. Toncheva was WP:CITED by an Anthroposophist editor almost a year ago. Same applies to Gilhus, Tøllefsen and to the book edited by Partridge. So I was by far not the first to cite them here. So, you see, there is nothing particularly new or original in my approach. I don't do original research. And I have simply stated facts known to the educated public since at least 10 years ago. I get the point that some people get angry that Wikipedia says these things about their new religious movement, but don't blame me, since these are facts print-published by mainstream scholars for several decades. We don't play hide and seek with facts known to the mainstream academia for decades, see WP:CENSOR.
Now that Anthroposophy is a new religious movement is WP:V by 5 WP:RS, and 10 other WP:RS which agree with that statement are commented out. So that statement could get 15 references just by un-commenting those references. So, it's one of the most securely established facts about Anthroposophy: most claims from this article are not WP:CITED to so many different mainstream scholars.
Who says it's a new religious movement or a religion or occultism or a Christian heresy, such as (neo)Gnosticism or (neo)Rosicrucianism? (counting authors + editors of collective books + translators)
Evidence: User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox2. It lists 31 WP:RS which WP:V the answer to this question.
Note: Diener and Hipolito plead that (maybe) it is not heretical, but what it is then? Religiously orthodox (according to them). So, still a religion — "aspiring to the status of religious dogma" confirms this (page 78).
Also, I am not saying that Jung, the Pope, the Cardinals, Winker, and Rhodes are right. Nor am I saying they are wrong. All I am saying is they are entitled to their own theological opinions, and their opinions are relevant to this article. I am not taking sides whether they express "true" religion vs. "false" religion. I respect learned views (scholarly views), without necessarily claiming they speak WP:THETRUTH. Without implying that either Evangelicalism or Catholicism are "true", I can see why they claim that anthroposophy is a heresy: it abides by a very different set of theological beliefs, so of course the Evangelical or Catholic orthodoxy reject those very different beliefs as being heretical. The claim of anthroposophists that they are theologically non-heretical, compared to mainstream Christianity, is risible. Remember: I'm not saying that mainstream Christianity is right, just that they have different beliefs. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
E.g. only the Catholic Church is prepared to spend many millions of dollars for defending their legal right to call Anthroposophy a heresy. So, Anthroposophists should be careful if they choose the path of litigation, there are considerably bigger players than them involved in this game. Oh, yes, the Vatican is a sovereign state, so it cannot be juridically coerced to retract it. Legally, the Catholic Church is not a religious organization, but it is a sovereign country. Anthroposophists from California enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but so do Catholic bishops from California. Coercing those bishops to say that Anthroposophy is not a heresy would violate their Constitutional rights. And they are prepared to litigate tooth and nail for their rights. Same applies to Catholic bishops from the Netherlands or from Switzerland. They have no other option than to see it as a vicious attack against the Church. So, the only avenue for appealing it is convincing the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith that Anthroposophy isn't heretical. But we all know that it does not even stand the chance of a snowball in hell. It's like in that joke wherein the chicken and the pig want to give someone else ham and eggs: for the chicken it's a gift, for the pig it's a sacrifice. Meaning that for Anthroposophists being declared heretics is bad PR, while for the Catholic Church not being able to call Anthroposophy a heresy is an existential threat.
But, wait, aren't my edits a vicious attack against Anthroposophy? Since Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia based upon WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Anthroposophists cannot demand that Wikipedia hide properly attested scholarly facts from public view. See WP:CENSOR. What Wikipedia certainly isn't: a PR venue for new religious movements. We do not pander to piety. “Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Kimball C. Atwood.
Even clearer: the problem of Anthroposophy at Wikipedia isn't me, but mainstream science, mainstream medicine, and mainstream academia. Wikipedia kowtows to these, and they all give the lie to Anthroposophy.
Schnurbein and Ulbricht published their claim more than 20 years ago, so that's also very much past the statute of limitations inside German law. If the Anthroposophical Society did not win by now the trial against Schnurbein and Ulbricht, it no longer has a case against declaring Anthroposophy a religion, in the German-speaking countries. And the journal of the International Bureau of Education stated that Anthroposophy is a religion twice before I was even born. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Court documents are not WP:RS. If no WP:RS rendered the conclusion that verdict, the verdict itself is unusable for Wikipedia.
There are more than 30 WP:RS which support the point that Anthroposophy is a religion, or a new religious movement, or a Christian heresy. No WP:RS has been WP:CITED for the opposite POV.
Before you ask: yes, I have WP:CITED court verdicts before. But never for claims which cannot be WP:V to WP:SECONDARY sources.
Let me say this: I don't contest the result of the verdict, it is just that no WP:RS has reported the verdict remaining definitive (final). An information which made it to no WP:RS is not Wikipedia-worthy, even if it is formally true.
This source only reports the verdict as being a provisional result, and does not exactly agree that Anthroposophy isn't religion. tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Evidence of WP:MEAT: Google "VANDALIZED by one guy — Tgeorgescu — with an axe to grind — trying to prove that Anthroposohpy is racist — making over 100 edits to the Anthroposophy article — when i know for a fact that Anthroposophists are the most inclusive, open, and diverse group. was so shocked when a friend who had asked me about. Anthroposophy thought i was Racist — because it was the first thing she read on Wikipedia — until i read the. EDIT HISTORY — over a 100 edits from one guy — Tgeorgescu — grrr someone help me get this Vandal out of Wikipedia — with his lies. if you".
Also Google "this guy Tgeorgescu is shitting all over Anthroposophy — and it is not right to let his lies stand. please help get the word out. thanks jp".
Date: 19 October 2023.
Hard to miss: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22shitting+all+over+Anthroposophy%22
John Penner
January 3 at 2:55 AM ·
calling for a bit of help here — to help with some Vandalism to the wikipedia article for Anthroposophy Wikipedia Article /info/en/?search=Anthroposophy
if you check the Wikipedia Edit HISTORY — you can see how the Anthroposophy entry has been VANDALIZED by one guy — Tgeorgescu — with an axe to grind — trying to prove that Anthroposohpy is racist — making over 100 edits to the Anthroposophy article — when i know for a fact that Anthroposophists are the most inclusive, open, and diverse group. i was so shocked when a friend who had asked me about Anthroposophy thought i was Racist — because it was the first thing she read on Wikipedia — until i read the EDIT HISTORY — over a 100 edits from one guy — Tgeorgescu — grrr 😡
someone help me get this Vandal out of Wikipedia — with his lies. if you could spend a couple minutes to login to Wikipedia and correct just one statement in the article — that would be of use — because right now — this guy Tgeorgescu is shitting all over Anthroposophy — and it is not right to let his lies stand. please help get the word out. thanks jp
Full quote. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
**** Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Penner's ire seems to be directed against me having read
WP:RS known to the mainstream academia for decades, see
WP:CENSOR. I mean: the basic
WP:RS about racism is a PhD thesis from the Ivy League, 14 years ago. He seems to think that the most germane facts, from the most illustrious sources, should be left unsaid, just because otherwise people might call him a racist. “Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Kimball C. Atwood. Removing citations to
WP:SCHOLARSHIP because some people might get offended would mean putting the axe at the root of Wikipedia. I'm not saying that I would
WP:OWN the article, but mainstream scholars collectively own it. As
Bon courage put it, Wikipedia does not deal in your "truth", but reflects accepted knowledge.
The problems with "it is not right to let his lies stand":
He is wrong that the enemy is me, rather than mainstream professors in general. I'll explain you how it works: I don't have to be faithful to Rudolf Steiner, I have to be faithful to sources written by mainstream professors. If he has an argument that I'm not faithful to such sources, let him speak.
So, yes, there is a difference between WP:THETRUTH of Anthroposophy and the mainstream academic view about Anthroposophy. These are not upon the same page. Many of the sources/scholars which I have WP:CITED were already mentioned by Anthroposophic editors, so my only guilt is that of reading what those sources/scholars wrote. He blames me for compiling this "press review", instead of blaming the people who wrote the original papers. So, when the pro-Anthroposophy faction cites Hammer, it is perfectly all right, but when I cite Hammer, it is "murder in the astral plane". When I dare to WP:CITE the same authors/UNESCO journals as WP:CITED by Luciola63, HopsonRoad, Clean Copy, Tomchat123, Thebee, Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?, and SamwiseGSix, it suddenly becomes highly contentious. That is the very definition of "rules for thee, but not for me". HopsonRoad does not seem to be pro-Anthroposophic, but the rest of those mentioned do seem.
If what I wrote in the article would be just my own views, it would be easy-peasy to get this article rid of my own opinions. I don't get published at the Royal Brill Publishers, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, MIT Press, or Yale University Press. The scholars whom I have cited do.
In a nutshell: Anthroposophists have the legal right to hold WP:FRINGE views, and mainstream professors have the legal right to criticize WP:FRINGE views.
And as argued by Munoz in his PhD thesis, if you assume people only have one life on Earth, then Anthroposophy is certainly racist. But if you assume that people reincarnate in various races, then it's not racist. So, yes, for people who don't believe in reincarnation, it is a perfectly cogent view that Anthroposophy is racist. Of course, Anthroposophists believe in reincarnation, so they think that the mainstream view upon Anthroposophy is dead wrong. So, I don't say that Penner has to agree with me that Anthroposophy is racist, but has to understand that since most people and most mainstream professors don't believe in reincarnation, that's the mainstream view. Sometimes WP:SCHOLARSHIP does have metaphysical assumptions, and here is not the place to WP:RGW about it. In the end, Wikipedia serves the mainstream academic paradigm, not an WP:IN-UNIVERSE view. And the problem with the pro-Anthroposophy faction is that they don't understand very well the fact that Wikipedians are only here to serve the mainstream academic paradigm. Wikipedians are not the masters of Wikipedia, they are its servants. And we don't edit Wikipedia for aggrandizing our own religion, but for rendering mainstream academic knowledge about religion.
I'm not saying that reincarnation is impossible, just that it isn't the mainstream view, nor the mainstream academic view. That is, the mainstream academic view is that reincarnation is mythology. It could be true, it could be false, but since there is no way to know, scholars call it mythology. Or, if you prefer, it is a religious belief. Anthroposophists say reincarnation is science (meaning an objectively assessable fact about the spiritual world), but nope, it isn't science, it is a religious belief (meaning a subjective opinion).
I saw an article at medium.com wherein its author (Q. G. Wingfield) is persuaded I'm the author of these opinions. The Anthroposophists are extremely concerned with the fact that I'm citing learned opinions online, but they do not seem concerned with the fact that these opinions were print-published in the first place, and also stored in online repositories (that is: I wasn't the person who stored them there). And, again, many times the pro-Anthroposophic editors have provided the WP:RS I have WP:CITED. So, yes, the charge boils down to: I have dared to read the WP:RS which the pro-Anthroposophy faction has produced in defense of Anthroposophy. They have WP:CITED some sources in order to defend their own religion, and now they get terribly angry that I actually read those sources.
Clearly expressed at
[2] by a Waldorf teacher that The article references peer-reviewed, largely academic sources, the opposite of propaganda.
This is
WP:PAG: citing mainstream academic RS about Anthroposophy is the opposite of propaganda. I.e. propaganda is banned from Wikipedia according to
WP:SOAP. Rendering the mainstream academic view is not propaganda. So, what I do here counts as propaganda only for people who think that academic criticism is an insidious plot. Plot initiated by the
Academy of Gondishapur according to Steinerian mythology.
There are millions who believe that Ancient astronauts is gospel truth. Yet Wikipedia correctly labels it as racist pseudohistory. tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Ha, ha, ha, Wingfield, who first invited me to openly debate the issue, has blocked me on Medium.com. And I was on their page extremely polite, towards them, Anthroposophy, and even Rudolf Steiner. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
What strikes me is that Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner have been edited by many WP:SPAs and throw-away accounts. They have one or two short bursts of edits, then they cease editing for good.
So, yes, I guess it is more like astroturfing than having many persons who tried to edit the article. Why do I think that? Because they all misunderstood Wikipedia in the same way. If there were many newbies, we would expect they misunderstand Wikipedia in different ways. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I will tell you what would be vandalism: suppose I no longer like my own edits and I would seek to delete big chunks from the article because those were added by me. That would be vandalism, and I would rightfully get blocked for doing it. tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
See Talk:Rudolf Steiner#Drop the claim. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I have updated references. I have properly WP:CITED many already existing references, but often I do not know their page numbers, so I cannot provide those. And I certainly did not check them if they pass WP:V. tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Querying the following line from the lede:
Anthroposophy has its roots in German idealism, mystical philosophies, and pseudoscience including racist pseudoscience
Which sources state that the roots of anthroposophy include pseudoscience? As opposed to the content of anthroposophy? (For example Staudenmaier's "Race and Redemption" article refers to roots in Theosophy only, as far as I can tell.) Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? ( talk) 17:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The history of anthroposophy runs from 1901-2024 and across more than 80 countries. The lede should not focus primarily on the period 1933-1945 in Germany. I have therefore moved the extensive detailing of this period from the lede into the body of the article. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? ( talk) 18:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
In respect to the claims about Steiner's Docetism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism: I don't believe in the univocality of the Bible, why I would believe in the univocality of mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP? tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't pretend that "spiritualist movement" is either true or false. It is simply how Anthroposophy got called by mainstream scholars.
The bar of others have variously called it
is a pretty low bar. And if "spiritualist movement" has to go, then "spiritual science" has to go, too, because that's a claim pertaining to
nl:Wij van Wc-eend adviseren Wc-eend. Meaning:
WP:IS do not buy into the claim that Anthroposophy is a spiritual science.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
01:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anthroposophy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While source #11 could be construed as WP:OR, the first ten sources of our article fully WP:V the claim that Anthroposophy is Christian Gnosticism (or neognosticism).
The ten sources express a variety of POVs: Catholic, Protestant, mainstream academic (I counted at least two full professors), and including the New Age guru Carl Gustav Jung who was Steiner's fellow neognostic leader.
There is an enormous burden of proof for giving the lie to all these ten sources, and Wikipedia listens to WP:RS written by experts, not to court verdicts written by judges having a limited knowledge of Western esotericism. In matters of academic knowledge, the final authority is WP:BESTSOURCES, not the courts of law. Courts do not get to dictate what experts in religion studies and in heresiology should believe.
If you deny the application of WP:YESPOV, then answer this question: which is the opposing view? According to which WP:RS?
Some of the ten RS have been public for several decades. Who are their detractors? I don't mean detractors in general, but detractors of the claim that Anthroposophy is neognosticism. If there are dissenters, WP:CITE the dissenters.
And if you claim that Anthroposophy is neorosicrucian: there isn't a contradiction between neorosicrucian and neognostic. tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Anthroposophy is Gnosticismbecause "the Gnosis was strictly guarded", that is a completely bogus reason. Meaning their claim isn't WP:V in WP:RS written by respectable scholars of religion. The claim was made up by Blavatsky, and taken at face value by Steiner and his believers. Or, allowing for some doubt, made up by Steiner and taken at face value by his believers.
proveanything. I simply WP:CITE WP:RS. Wikipedia is simply a website for churning WP:RS, according to an agreed methodology ( WP:RULES).
Gnosticism. So I don't support that edit. But if the WP:CONSENSUS says I'm wrong about it, I am prepared to accept it. Also, the articles from Britannica about Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are terribly short, I don't think they are good examples to follow. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
We aren't going to feed six billion people with organic fertilizer. If we tried to do it, we would level most of our forest and many of those lands would be productive only for a short period of time.
Wikipedia is an attempt to collect the knowledge of a materialistic and mechanistic world view and to present the ideological view of neoliberalism and state-conformist western politics.https://www.freewiki.eu/en/index.php?title=Welcome_to_FreeWiki tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Anthroposophy is largely pseudoscientific, and you cannot change that through talk page arguments. Wikipedia will continue to say that Anthroposophy is largely pseudoscientific. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
In the end, he made me curious about Munoz's PhD thesis, so I checked what Munoz says about "Anthroposophy and racism", and I have WP:CITED Munoz. So, I did not even had to search for WP:RS, since in several instances the Anthroposophic editors have provided the sources for me, I only had to read what the sources say. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Robertson 2021 p. 572
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Gilmer 2021 p. 412
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Layton 1980 p.2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Winker 1994 p.3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Rhodes 1990 p.3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
Looking for reasons we can't add and cite this academic article among others, as an example? This can't in any way reasonably be considered 'whitewashing' right..
https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y SamwiseGSix ( talk) 22:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
"It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality, and as such it has frequently intervened in the development of our current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable to European ideas of culture. But Jewry itself has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking." (Steiner, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur p. 152)
"Thus the greatest tragedy of this 20th century [World War I] has come from what the Jews are also striving for. And one can say that since everything the Jews have done can now be done consciously by all people, the best thing that the Jews could do would be to disappear into the rest of humankind, to blend in with the rest of humankind, so that Jewry as a people would simply cease to exist. That is what would be ideal. This ideal is still opposed, even today, by many Jewish habits - and above all by the hatred of other people. That is what must be overcome." (Steiner, Die Geschichte der Menschheit und die Weltanschauungen der Kulturvölker p. 189)
Das Judentum als solches hat sich aber längst ausgelebt, hat keine Berechtigung des modernen Völkerlebens, und daß es sich dennoch erhalten hat, ist ein Fehler der Weltgeschichte, dessen Folgen nicht ausbleiben konnten. Wir meinen hier nicht die Formen der jüdischen Religion alleine, wir meinen vorzüglich den Geist des Judentums, die jüdische Denkweise. "Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur " GA 32, p. 152 f.
Judaism as such is long lived out, has no entitlement of modern peoples' lives, and that it persists nevertheless is an error in world history which was bound to have inevitable consequences. We do not mean Jewish religion only, we especially mean the character of Judaism, the Jewish way of thinking.
potentially devastating: as I told you, Wikipedia is not for positing my own opinions, but for positing the opinions of WP:RS. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
"Angry gnomes produce quarrels between schoolchildren, so let's blame the janitor!"—do you call that ontology/epistemology? Ha, ha, ha!
Teachers who seriously claim that are full-blown delusional. You can have more hope for a crack addict or for a heroin junkie. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Mosesheron: What difference do you see to Smith and Mormonism? A man claims he has had revelations from God, presents a new scripture he says comes from God, starts a new religion that claims to be a restoration, not new. It sure seems very similar. The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, we go for WP:BESTSOURCES. We do not go for sources which fail WP:FRIND. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb ( talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Coming back to the edit you have suggested, my two cents are that all the new sources fail WP:FRIND, so: no, you edit isn't allowed. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
ontologymeaning gnomes, elves, fairies, and sylphs;
epistemologymeaning talking to the spirits of dead Atlanteans. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is groundedis a largely meaningless sentence that only serves only WP:FALSEBALANCE. Do opponents "acknowledge arguments" when they refute them? Anthroposophy is a weird mixture of obsolete scientific theories, schizophrenic delusions, and platitudes, held together by pompous flubdub. And that sentence is 100% pompous flubdub. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Rather then providing links how about three really good quotes that back up your suggestion? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
even a broken clock is right twice a day—especially schools which cherrypick students from parents who are affluent and well-learned. And let's not forget: they expel students who are lazy, stupid, or misbehaving. While the hurdle for expelling students from vanilla public schools is extremely high. Why did Steve Jobs die? Because he chose alternative medicine. So, you see, even people who are affluent and well-learned do not always choose the best for themselves (and their children). tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
Hi, Nathanielcwilliams. We are not Kuhnian purists. I don't say that Kuhn isn't important, but he is not begin all and end all. Some epistemic choices have been ready-made for the Wikipedia Community, I mean the website policy WP:PSCI. Or if you want a hardcore introduction to that policy, read WP:LUNATICS.
Stated otherwise, let's say you're studying chemistry. If you learn well the paradigm of chemistry, you become a good chemist-scientist. If you don't, then you become a maverick. Same applies to Wikipedia, but in place of a scientific paradigm we have WP:RULES about which sources are relevant, how to mediate disputes, and so on. One who learns well these rules becomes a good Wikipedian, one who doesn't becomes a maverick and gets blocked and topic-banned. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Since I'm taking a break from editing this subject, there is one very big accusation I seek to clear my name of, see User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2023/November#AE discussion closed. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Karen Swartz and Olav Hammer say it is a new religious movement. Martin Gardner called it a cult.
Some have argued that there are court verdicts that Anthroposophy isn't religion ( [1]). To such argument I reply:
My wife is an expert, among many other things, in Chaucer. She doesn’t “believe” in Chaucer, although she loves the texts and finds them personally important. There are professors in the university who teach the history of communism; most of them are not communists. Others teach the philosophy of Plato; they are not necessarily Platonists. Others teach the history of 20th century Germany; they aren’t Nazis. Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers. ... And so a scholar of Buddhism is not necessarily Buddhist (the ones I know aren’t); a scholar of American fundamentalism is not necessarily an American fundamentalist (one of my colleagues in that field at UNC is an Israeli Jew); a scholar of the history of Catholicism is not necessarily Roman Catholic (another colleague of mine in that field is, again, somewhat oddly, another Israeli Jew); scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim (neither of my colleagues in that field are); etc etc.
— ehrmanblog.org
Some people maintain that it is impossible to study Jesus without believing in him. Do you think this is true? Is it true for other areas of academic study? Is it possible, for example, to study Buddhism without being a Buddhist? Or the Dialogues of Socrates without being a Platonist? Or communism without being a Marxist?
— The Historical Jesus. Part I. Professor Bart D. Ehrman. The Teaching Company, 2000, p. 4
We can start the topic by conceding that, just as no modern expert on Plato is expected to be a Platonist (even of the Middle or Neo- sort), no Bible expert should be expected to accept the ideas it puts forth, far less believe in its god(s) or its divine origin.
— Philip R. Davies, Reading the Bible Intelligently
Conclusion: Don't ventilate court verdicts around here, Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are. If you are here to deny that Anthroposophy is a religion: that ship has sailed. The dispute lies at the level of emic vs. etic. Hint: Wikipedia rubber-stamps the etic view. Anthroposophists don't agree with mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP because they think it is written by Muggles. And, yup, I can grant them this: from the inside it does not look like you are part of a religion, but more like having the secret key to the mysteries of all religions ever. And that secret key lies in Rudolf Steiner's teachings (for beginners) and in Rudolf Steiner's spiritual exercises (for more advanced adepts) + esoteric school (whose teachings are really secret).
Also, my approach isn't "stick it to them", but render the WP:CHOPSY view about Anthroposophy. I am not so much opposed to Anthroposophy as "pushing" the mainstream academic view. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
According to religious studies, Anthroposophy is a religion. I did not find WP:SECONDARY or tertiary WP:RS stating that it isn't a religion.
Hammer, Olav (2008). Geertz, Armin; Warburg, Margit (eds.).
New Religions and Globalization. Renner Studies On New Religions. Aarhus University Press. p. 69.
ISBN
978-87-7934-681-9. Retrieved 23 January 2024. Anthroposophy is thus from an emic point of view emphatically not a religion.
— The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Anthroposophists would have to sue four dozens scholars plus the Pope and Cardinals in order that they publish retractions with peer-review, and the problem is that at least five of those scholars, and several Popes, are unable to publish retractions, due to being deceased. The bottom line is: Wikipedia will no longer accept such information to be retracted (or deleted from the article), it is here to stay. It is too late for the Anthroposophical Society to change anything about that: since too much time has passed since the initial publication of those scholarly papers, the legal claim of the Society is rendered void and meritless. Suing 100 years after the fact (since the claim that Anthroposophy is a new religious movement was published on US soil) means having your lawsuit dismissed out of hand. The lawyer who tells them they could win such case is a conman or a dope addict.
E.g. the book edited by Cusack was introduced as WP:RS by Luciola63, not by me. So, in this respect, I explored a RS which has been added years ago to the article, with no one protesting against its citation. Luciola63 followed the suggestion by HopsonRoad. Similarly, McDermott was WP:CITED as an authority in May 2006 by Clean Copy. Ahern was cited in March 2006 by Tomchat123. Hammer was cited as an authority in May 2007 by an IP and AFAIK never since removed from this article. The International Bureau of Education was WP:CITED in January 2007 by Thebee. Toncheva was WP:CITED by an Anthroposophist editor almost a year ago. Same applies to Gilhus, Tøllefsen and to the book edited by Partridge. So I was by far not the first to cite them here. So, you see, there is nothing particularly new or original in my approach. I don't do original research. And I have simply stated facts known to the educated public since at least 10 years ago. I get the point that some people get angry that Wikipedia says these things about their new religious movement, but don't blame me, since these are facts print-published by mainstream scholars for several decades. We don't play hide and seek with facts known to the mainstream academia for decades, see WP:CENSOR.
Now that Anthroposophy is a new religious movement is WP:V by 5 WP:RS, and 10 other WP:RS which agree with that statement are commented out. So that statement could get 15 references just by un-commenting those references. So, it's one of the most securely established facts about Anthroposophy: most claims from this article are not WP:CITED to so many different mainstream scholars.
Who says it's a new religious movement or a religion or occultism or a Christian heresy, such as (neo)Gnosticism or (neo)Rosicrucianism? (counting authors + editors of collective books + translators)
Evidence: User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox2. It lists 31 WP:RS which WP:V the answer to this question.
Note: Diener and Hipolito plead that (maybe) it is not heretical, but what it is then? Religiously orthodox (according to them). So, still a religion — "aspiring to the status of religious dogma" confirms this (page 78).
Also, I am not saying that Jung, the Pope, the Cardinals, Winker, and Rhodes are right. Nor am I saying they are wrong. All I am saying is they are entitled to their own theological opinions, and their opinions are relevant to this article. I am not taking sides whether they express "true" religion vs. "false" religion. I respect learned views (scholarly views), without necessarily claiming they speak WP:THETRUTH. Without implying that either Evangelicalism or Catholicism are "true", I can see why they claim that anthroposophy is a heresy: it abides by a very different set of theological beliefs, so of course the Evangelical or Catholic orthodoxy reject those very different beliefs as being heretical. The claim of anthroposophists that they are theologically non-heretical, compared to mainstream Christianity, is risible. Remember: I'm not saying that mainstream Christianity is right, just that they have different beliefs. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
E.g. only the Catholic Church is prepared to spend many millions of dollars for defending their legal right to call Anthroposophy a heresy. So, Anthroposophists should be careful if they choose the path of litigation, there are considerably bigger players than them involved in this game. Oh, yes, the Vatican is a sovereign state, so it cannot be juridically coerced to retract it. Legally, the Catholic Church is not a religious organization, but it is a sovereign country. Anthroposophists from California enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but so do Catholic bishops from California. Coercing those bishops to say that Anthroposophy is not a heresy would violate their Constitutional rights. And they are prepared to litigate tooth and nail for their rights. Same applies to Catholic bishops from the Netherlands or from Switzerland. They have no other option than to see it as a vicious attack against the Church. So, the only avenue for appealing it is convincing the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith that Anthroposophy isn't heretical. But we all know that it does not even stand the chance of a snowball in hell. It's like in that joke wherein the chicken and the pig want to give someone else ham and eggs: for the chicken it's a gift, for the pig it's a sacrifice. Meaning that for Anthroposophists being declared heretics is bad PR, while for the Catholic Church not being able to call Anthroposophy a heresy is an existential threat.
But, wait, aren't my edits a vicious attack against Anthroposophy? Since Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia based upon WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Anthroposophists cannot demand that Wikipedia hide properly attested scholarly facts from public view. See WP:CENSOR. What Wikipedia certainly isn't: a PR venue for new religious movements. We do not pander to piety. “Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Kimball C. Atwood.
Even clearer: the problem of Anthroposophy at Wikipedia isn't me, but mainstream science, mainstream medicine, and mainstream academia. Wikipedia kowtows to these, and they all give the lie to Anthroposophy.
Schnurbein and Ulbricht published their claim more than 20 years ago, so that's also very much past the statute of limitations inside German law. If the Anthroposophical Society did not win by now the trial against Schnurbein and Ulbricht, it no longer has a case against declaring Anthroposophy a religion, in the German-speaking countries. And the journal of the International Bureau of Education stated that Anthroposophy is a religion twice before I was even born. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Court documents are not WP:RS. If no WP:RS rendered the conclusion that verdict, the verdict itself is unusable for Wikipedia.
There are more than 30 WP:RS which support the point that Anthroposophy is a religion, or a new religious movement, or a Christian heresy. No WP:RS has been WP:CITED for the opposite POV.
Before you ask: yes, I have WP:CITED court verdicts before. But never for claims which cannot be WP:V to WP:SECONDARY sources.
Let me say this: I don't contest the result of the verdict, it is just that no WP:RS has reported the verdict remaining definitive (final). An information which made it to no WP:RS is not Wikipedia-worthy, even if it is formally true.
This source only reports the verdict as being a provisional result, and does not exactly agree that Anthroposophy isn't religion. tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Evidence of WP:MEAT: Google "VANDALIZED by one guy — Tgeorgescu — with an axe to grind — trying to prove that Anthroposohpy is racist — making over 100 edits to the Anthroposophy article — when i know for a fact that Anthroposophists are the most inclusive, open, and diverse group. was so shocked when a friend who had asked me about. Anthroposophy thought i was Racist — because it was the first thing she read on Wikipedia — until i read the. EDIT HISTORY — over a 100 edits from one guy — Tgeorgescu — grrr someone help me get this Vandal out of Wikipedia — with his lies. if you".
Also Google "this guy Tgeorgescu is shitting all over Anthroposophy — and it is not right to let his lies stand. please help get the word out. thanks jp".
Date: 19 October 2023.
Hard to miss: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22shitting+all+over+Anthroposophy%22
John Penner
January 3 at 2:55 AM ·
calling for a bit of help here — to help with some Vandalism to the wikipedia article for Anthroposophy Wikipedia Article /info/en/?search=Anthroposophy
if you check the Wikipedia Edit HISTORY — you can see how the Anthroposophy entry has been VANDALIZED by one guy — Tgeorgescu — with an axe to grind — trying to prove that Anthroposohpy is racist — making over 100 edits to the Anthroposophy article — when i know for a fact that Anthroposophists are the most inclusive, open, and diverse group. i was so shocked when a friend who had asked me about Anthroposophy thought i was Racist — because it was the first thing she read on Wikipedia — until i read the EDIT HISTORY — over a 100 edits from one guy — Tgeorgescu — grrr 😡
someone help me get this Vandal out of Wikipedia — with his lies. if you could spend a couple minutes to login to Wikipedia and correct just one statement in the article — that would be of use — because right now — this guy Tgeorgescu is shitting all over Anthroposophy — and it is not right to let his lies stand. please help get the word out. thanks jp
Full quote. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
**** Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Penner's ire seems to be directed against me having read
WP:RS known to the mainstream academia for decades, see
WP:CENSOR. I mean: the basic
WP:RS about racism is a PhD thesis from the Ivy League, 14 years ago. He seems to think that the most germane facts, from the most illustrious sources, should be left unsaid, just because otherwise people might call him a racist. “Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Kimball C. Atwood. Removing citations to
WP:SCHOLARSHIP because some people might get offended would mean putting the axe at the root of Wikipedia. I'm not saying that I would
WP:OWN the article, but mainstream scholars collectively own it. As
Bon courage put it, Wikipedia does not deal in your "truth", but reflects accepted knowledge.
The problems with "it is not right to let his lies stand":
He is wrong that the enemy is me, rather than mainstream professors in general. I'll explain you how it works: I don't have to be faithful to Rudolf Steiner, I have to be faithful to sources written by mainstream professors. If he has an argument that I'm not faithful to such sources, let him speak.
So, yes, there is a difference between WP:THETRUTH of Anthroposophy and the mainstream academic view about Anthroposophy. These are not upon the same page. Many of the sources/scholars which I have WP:CITED were already mentioned by Anthroposophic editors, so my only guilt is that of reading what those sources/scholars wrote. He blames me for compiling this "press review", instead of blaming the people who wrote the original papers. So, when the pro-Anthroposophy faction cites Hammer, it is perfectly all right, but when I cite Hammer, it is "murder in the astral plane". When I dare to WP:CITE the same authors/UNESCO journals as WP:CITED by Luciola63, HopsonRoad, Clean Copy, Tomchat123, Thebee, Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?, and SamwiseGSix, it suddenly becomes highly contentious. That is the very definition of "rules for thee, but not for me". HopsonRoad does not seem to be pro-Anthroposophic, but the rest of those mentioned do seem.
If what I wrote in the article would be just my own views, it would be easy-peasy to get this article rid of my own opinions. I don't get published at the Royal Brill Publishers, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, MIT Press, or Yale University Press. The scholars whom I have cited do.
In a nutshell: Anthroposophists have the legal right to hold WP:FRINGE views, and mainstream professors have the legal right to criticize WP:FRINGE views.
And as argued by Munoz in his PhD thesis, if you assume people only have one life on Earth, then Anthroposophy is certainly racist. But if you assume that people reincarnate in various races, then it's not racist. So, yes, for people who don't believe in reincarnation, it is a perfectly cogent view that Anthroposophy is racist. Of course, Anthroposophists believe in reincarnation, so they think that the mainstream view upon Anthroposophy is dead wrong. So, I don't say that Penner has to agree with me that Anthroposophy is racist, but has to understand that since most people and most mainstream professors don't believe in reincarnation, that's the mainstream view. Sometimes WP:SCHOLARSHIP does have metaphysical assumptions, and here is not the place to WP:RGW about it. In the end, Wikipedia serves the mainstream academic paradigm, not an WP:IN-UNIVERSE view. And the problem with the pro-Anthroposophy faction is that they don't understand very well the fact that Wikipedians are only here to serve the mainstream academic paradigm. Wikipedians are not the masters of Wikipedia, they are its servants. And we don't edit Wikipedia for aggrandizing our own religion, but for rendering mainstream academic knowledge about religion.
I'm not saying that reincarnation is impossible, just that it isn't the mainstream view, nor the mainstream academic view. That is, the mainstream academic view is that reincarnation is mythology. It could be true, it could be false, but since there is no way to know, scholars call it mythology. Or, if you prefer, it is a religious belief. Anthroposophists say reincarnation is science (meaning an objectively assessable fact about the spiritual world), but nope, it isn't science, it is a religious belief (meaning a subjective opinion).
I saw an article at medium.com wherein its author (Q. G. Wingfield) is persuaded I'm the author of these opinions. The Anthroposophists are extremely concerned with the fact that I'm citing learned opinions online, but they do not seem concerned with the fact that these opinions were print-published in the first place, and also stored in online repositories (that is: I wasn't the person who stored them there). And, again, many times the pro-Anthroposophic editors have provided the WP:RS I have WP:CITED. So, yes, the charge boils down to: I have dared to read the WP:RS which the pro-Anthroposophy faction has produced in defense of Anthroposophy. They have WP:CITED some sources in order to defend their own religion, and now they get terribly angry that I actually read those sources.
Clearly expressed at
[2] by a Waldorf teacher that The article references peer-reviewed, largely academic sources, the opposite of propaganda.
This is
WP:PAG: citing mainstream academic RS about Anthroposophy is the opposite of propaganda. I.e. propaganda is banned from Wikipedia according to
WP:SOAP. Rendering the mainstream academic view is not propaganda. So, what I do here counts as propaganda only for people who think that academic criticism is an insidious plot. Plot initiated by the
Academy of Gondishapur according to Steinerian mythology.
There are millions who believe that Ancient astronauts is gospel truth. Yet Wikipedia correctly labels it as racist pseudohistory. tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Ha, ha, ha, Wingfield, who first invited me to openly debate the issue, has blocked me on Medium.com. And I was on their page extremely polite, towards them, Anthroposophy, and even Rudolf Steiner. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
What strikes me is that Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner have been edited by many WP:SPAs and throw-away accounts. They have one or two short bursts of edits, then they cease editing for good.
So, yes, I guess it is more like astroturfing than having many persons who tried to edit the article. Why do I think that? Because they all misunderstood Wikipedia in the same way. If there were many newbies, we would expect they misunderstand Wikipedia in different ways. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I will tell you what would be vandalism: suppose I no longer like my own edits and I would seek to delete big chunks from the article because those were added by me. That would be vandalism, and I would rightfully get blocked for doing it. tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
See Talk:Rudolf Steiner#Drop the claim. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I have updated references. I have properly WP:CITED many already existing references, but often I do not know their page numbers, so I cannot provide those. And I certainly did not check them if they pass WP:V. tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Querying the following line from the lede:
Anthroposophy has its roots in German idealism, mystical philosophies, and pseudoscience including racist pseudoscience
Which sources state that the roots of anthroposophy include pseudoscience? As opposed to the content of anthroposophy? (For example Staudenmaier's "Race and Redemption" article refers to roots in Theosophy only, as far as I can tell.) Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? ( talk) 17:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The history of anthroposophy runs from 1901-2024 and across more than 80 countries. The lede should not focus primarily on the period 1933-1945 in Germany. I have therefore moved the extensive detailing of this period from the lede into the body of the article. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? ( talk) 18:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
In respect to the claims about Steiner's Docetism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism: I don't believe in the univocality of the Bible, why I would believe in the univocality of mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP? tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't pretend that "spiritualist movement" is either true or false. It is simply how Anthroposophy got called by mainstream scholars.
The bar of others have variously called it
is a pretty low bar. And if "spiritualist movement" has to go, then "spiritual science" has to go, too, because that's a claim pertaining to
nl:Wij van Wc-eend adviseren Wc-eend. Meaning:
WP:IS do not buy into the claim that Anthroposophy is a spiritual science.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
01:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)